Saturday, March 20, 2010

My friends, I know what you are thinking right now. You are thinking "this website's entire purpose is undermined because it is just biased against XKCD, thus making any criticism it makes entirely invalid." Yes, you, specifically. You phrased your thoughts in that exact way. I know it. I can feel it.

Because we are biased, you are thinking, we just go looking for flaws in the comics. We are predisposed to dislike them when they come out, because that's our "job." That's the function of this blog. We certainly never say that a comic is fine, but that is beside the point. No, the fact that, as critics, we look for something to criticize, makes all of our criticisms invalid, somehow!

Look. This is what, when you were taking your high school logic class, you would have called ad hominem. (Well, YOU never actually called it that, because you are too stupid to actually understand what "ad hominem" is and think that it's just "any time someone insults you," but your teacher probably tried to drill that definition into your thick skull. Every day now he weeps for his failures. You have shattered a man's hope for the future, you dick.) You are not deflecting the criticisms, you are merely saying that because we dislike XKCD our arguments have no validity--conveniently ignoring the arguments!

It conveniently ignores other facts, too--clearly this bias comes from somewhere, since the majority of the posters here used to like XKCD. Even if they never did, they didn't go into it expecting to hate it. No, some quality of XKCD turned us off to it. Bias is not sufficient to explain our hate.

But let me get this out of the way: yes, when writing about a comic, we do, in fact, look for something to talk about. When I write a comic post it goes like this: do a cursory read to formulate a first impression; read it again to make sure I got it; start writing, referencing the comic for an in-depth analysis.

How it is, exactly, that doing an in-depth analysis of something invalidates that analysis is still a puzzle to me--it seems to me that the only way to do a correct analysis is to do so in-depth. I'm left to conclude that fanboys believe that the only acceptable way to read XKCD is to read it on a cursory level and do no thought whatsoever, and that thinking about it ruins the brilliance--like realizing that the magician at your birthday party just had the rabbit up his sleeve the whole time.

So, yes, I guess we do go looking for flaws. I'm not sure of any other way to criticize. But every time we do, this incredibly remarkable thing happens.

When we go looking for flaws, we find them.

Posted by
rs

159 comments:

I imagine not looking specifically for flaws in a work of fiction would increase the enjoyment of that work immensely (sort of like turning your brain off in a movie theater so you don't flip out every time something doesn't make sense). But I agree; just because someone is predisposed to find bad stuff doesn't mean that any bad stuff they find is invalid.

While reading this blog, I have caught myself thinking that the posters jumped to a conclusion they wouldn't have made from a completely obvective standpoint. But as time has gone on, I've found it harder and harder to imagine anyone taking an objective standpoint on XKCD.

"I imagine not looking specifically for flaws in a work of fiction would increase the enjoyment of that work immensely (sort of like turning your brain off in a movie theater so you don't flip out every time something doesn't make sense)."

This is broadly true, actually. Expectations have a lot to do with shaping how one enjoys something on the whole. Movie critics often seem to not-enjoy a movie because they expected the wrong thing. And it's easier to enjoy something if you don't give it any thought later. But as you say:

"But I agree; just because someone is predisposed to find bad stuff doesn't mean that any bad stuff they find is invalid."

There are some rare exceptions, but this is very true. Even if you disagree with a review, the chances are it raises a good point--or at the very least, its points are not just automatically discredited. If their arguments are invalid you should be able to demonstrate it.

"While reading this blog, I have caught myself thinking that the posters jumped to a conclusion they wouldn't have made from a completely obvective standpoint. But as time has gone on, I've found it harder and harder to imagine anyone taking an objective standpoint on XKCD."

I'm more inclined to say it has something to do with the fact that XKCD has really poor art (so there is no context) and, despite being unnecessarily wordy, is really bad at using words to explain what exactly is going on.

You'll notice that especially among the worse ones, these incredibly disparate conclusions aren't unique to the XKCD Sucks community; the fanboys make them too. Each of them thinks that the joke is something completely different.

I'm reminded of Penny Arcade, although there is an enormous difference between the two. Specifically, Tony Hawk's Ride is $120, and xkcd is free. The difference may be so great that it breaks the entire analogy, but I like linking to Penny Arcade.

Anyway, since I'm a smug dickbag, I'm gonna say apropos of nothing that I was disliking xkcd way before it was cool. Isn't 375 as bad as anything these days, at least in terms of jokeless pandering and namedropping?

"You're biased against X" is too often said when what's actually meant is "you're negatively biased against X".If this site was called XKCD RAWKS you can bet those same wet-faced cuddlefish wouldn't complain about bias at all.

Besides, bias regards taste doesn't really apply to "Did you like it?/didn't you?" but "will you like it?/won't you?".Rants about yesterday's comics are perfectly valid. Rants about tomorrow's? Sure, that would be unfair and biased. But it doesn't happen so...moot point really.

With this whole "turning off your brain when watching films" I have actually found that I do enjoy more movies that way, but if the films are leading you to think they are intelligent and do stupid things, sometimes you can't help but call the movie on it, sort of like a lot of recent xkcd's, you can turn your brain off and accept it, but when you realise how stupid some of the things he's doing are, you kinda can't ignore them, well you can but that's not always healthy.

You'd think you wouldn't have to turn your brain off to enjoy a webcomic that touts itself as being one of the smartest, most intellectually rich webcomics around. After all, xkcd is for brainy types, unlike lowest-common-denominator tripe like Penny Arcade or Chainsaw Suit.

Oops, I typo'd an entire sentence. What I meant to say is, well of COURSE you're going to find flaws if you go looking for them, nothing's perfect, and obviously you're just complaining that XKCD fits the description of "not perfect", I mean, haha, what sort of person could POSSIBLY think it's less good than other things? Achewood? Please, don't make me laugh (or do - you'd set yourself apart from Achewood). Dinosaur Comics? IT'S THE SAME PICTURE EVERY COMIC.

Now I know that seems like a pretty unlikely typo, but I had a seizure typing my last comment, and you know, with all the seizures dudes be having, one of them was bound to convulse out a coherent sentence, one day.

I doubt anyone is bringing the teachings of their logic class to the table. All that "critical thinking" stuff doesn't belong in the real world. If it did, the entire fucking economy of the United States would collapse as well as its political system.

Expectation for conformity to the rules of reason and logical discourse simply won't occur outside the classroom, except by children. You can always tell the sophomoric folks from the adults when they try to apply the rules of critical thinking as a means of debate. They're so cute when they try.

No, that stuff originates and festers within academia and (fortunately) is allowed to go no further. None of the fourteen commentors here is complaining on that basis.

Congratulations Anon 11:28, you've caused me to meta-wonder. That is to say, I'm wondering whether I should wonder what you think logic and reason is, or if I should wonder what sort of insanity causes someone to think every adult is insane.The two wonderings are mutually exclusive, you see, because the first presumes you're sane but dumb, and the second presumes you know what logic is but are crazybuns.

I don't understand how anyone can say 'turn your brain off and you will enjoy it' about xkcd! I don't know about anyone else but I can only turn my brain off if I have something nice to look at. XKCD is not nice to look at so it had better be clever and make me think to make up for that fact.

Hmm, well, I suppose that one can hardly say stuff about this site being biased without acknowledging that the majority of the xkcd forum is biased towards xkcd, right? Thus, if the argument was even valid, then it would work both ways... I think.

Just as a side comment, it's a bit funny how natural it was to point to movies as an example of something that is routinely crappy, and how quick everyone was to accept it.

Hey guys, despite the nearly-unprecedented crapfest that was the 2010 Oscars, there are a lot of movies that do not require your brain to shut off! Unfortunately most of them are made in places where they don't try to make 1000 films a year, so, yeah, quite far from the U.S. or Bollywood.

The "your biased" comments are not an ad hominem fallacy, they're a warning to people reading your post to revue your points carefully. You, being biased and human, are likely to change around details, ignore certain aspects, make assumptions(which Carl has admitted to doing), and claim that things you dislike about the comic, which are subjective, are objective reasons why it sucks. Interestingly, you and Carl have done all of the above. Probably because of said bias.

The above does not apply to morons giving feedback to the blog. That is an ad hominem fallacy, and is proof that XKCDs fanbase have at some morons.

You know, I actually really quite like James Cameron. Sure, Avatar is probably his third-worst film, but he's done some quite good movies! The first two Terminator films, Aliens, and True Lies are great, and even The Abyss is okay enough. Then, of course, there are such cult classics as Piranha II: The Spawning, and then the two highest-grossing films of all time which are really quite meh comparatively.

"Anonymous said...Hey, wasn't that parenthetical stuff all ad hominem? Or am I just missing the irony? Meh, I'm going to assume it was intentional.

March 21, 2010 10:36 AM"

That is Rob's way of pointing out that this entire website should be taken with a heavy dose of irony. I know he and Carl don't like it to be explicitly stated, but that is about 50% of the intended humor of this site. If you haven't noticed yet, you are stupid enough to be an XKCD fanboi.

You cheated, you only linked to my account, you're not impersonating me, as McTony pointed out already :P

and Mal, that's really what I was referring to with Cameron, before he made Titanic and proclaimed himself the king of the world (anyone who watches the Oscars remembers THAT Best Director speech) his films were either thought provoking sci-fi thrillers or action packed films that you didn't stop to think about because they kept you entertained and you didn't give a fuck :D now he's just soaking up as much cash as he can, and succeeding, we can't really fault him for that, sort of like people who are self-sufficient based off their crummy webcomics, we can't fault them for being successful, but we can complain about their shitty products

Well, see, I also actually enjoyed watching Avatar. I happily sat there absorbing the CGI beauty of Pandora and watching giant mech explosions. We can talk about how it's derivative and how it's an expression of white guilt and how it's hypocritical to denigrate the technology of rich white American-analogues in a film that epitomizes the technology of a rich white American, and all those things are actually wholly correct and a serious impediment to appreciating it, but eurgh IDK.

It's interesting. Aliens had an undercurrent of "Military technology can really fuck the shit out of aliens, can't it! FUCK YEAH", whereas Avatar had an undercurrent of "Military technology can really fuck the shit out of aliens, a bloo bloo bloo :'-("

Also come on man this is freaking INSPECTOR GADGET. Randall did you never watch the show? In one episode when he thought Brain was a hula girl and Brain took off his coconut bra and grass skirt Inspector Gadget covered his eyes so he wouldn't accidentally see "her" naked.

Also yet another 2 Girls 1 Cup reference because it just wouldn't be xkcd if he didn't reference an internet meme that's past its prime and nobody cares about anymore.

Also I like how there's absolutely no way anyone could know that that is supposed to be Inspector Gadget until the final panel because the art is so bad.

Man I don't know I am bad at criticizing comics. Someone funnier and better than me write about this comic.

"Hey, wasn't that parenthetical stuff all ad hominem? Or am I just missing the irony? Meh, I'm going to assume it was intentional."

Well, no, it wasn't ad hominem, because ad hominem is a type of red herring where your insult is intended to distract from the argument--for instance, "your argument is invalid because you hate XKCD" or "why should we listen to you when you're just a liberal/atheist/etc." The parenthetical stuff was all an insult, however, insulting people exactly like you who think that "ad hominem" means "any time you insult someone," so yes, you are definitely missing the irony.

So hey the premise of this comics joke was roughly 3 seconds of an Eminem song this one time, except in that case it just a part of a larger string of humour in context, also in that case it was go go gadget dick. I am not saying he stole it from Eminem because probably everyone who has ever been familiar with Inspector Gadget thought of variations of this joke (so hey everyone ever deserves thousands of loving fans right?) mostly my point is that when 0.2% of an Eminem song is funnier than your comic your comic sucks pretty hard.

Ok everyone and their dog has made those jokes, and they all managed to do it BETTER, what the fuck?

of course this is the only thing that came to mind when I thought of who had done it better, but I realise that Robot Chicken isn't exactly a high point of comedy, but if sure fucking beats xkcd any day

I think my favorite Guy Who Does Jokes About The Eighties is Michael Ian Black. And that's not because I'm a fan of his work on I Love The 80s, mind you, but because I'm a fan of his work on Stella. So there's a pretty major halo effect.

When is Randall gonna make some jokes about John Rambo and Colonel John Matrix and Jean-Claude Van Damme and all that eighties stuff? There was more to the decade than shitty hair, shitty video games, and shitty cartoons.

Usually I go to xkcdsucks because fuck, you guys are almost always right, and funny to boot, but I love coming here when xkcd is actually GOOD because people always come up with the sillest complaints.

"Also come on man this is freaking INSPECTOR GADGET. Randall did you never watch the show? In one episode when he thought Brain was a hula girl and Brain took off his coconut bra and grass skirt Inspector Gadget covered his eyes so he wouldn't accidentally see "her" naked."

Okay, since you've got a sort of general thing going on, here's something I've been meaning to ask ever since I found this site a week ago: how do you feel about Jessica Hagy's Indexed? What originally drew me to it was how much it was like the good parts of xkcd -- thought-provoking, intellectual, somewhat nerdy -- without the whole "forced to strain and struggle to add outright comedy as if it were a difficult turd" aspect. I'm curious if you see it as an example of how you wish xkcd could be, or as the nadir of what is already quite a deep chasm that xkcd has dug.

Indexed is usually pretty decent, but sometimes it's either not funny or clearly trying too hard. So I don't read it regularly but when someone who does links me it doesn't bother me, and I also don't feel like I'm offending something at the very core of their being if I make fun of it when it sucks.

I was never too into graph comics to begin with. They're hit or miss. Sometimes it's clever, sometimes it's a joke that needs to be told in some other way, and sometimes it just needs to be never expressed.

I mean, I LIKE the analysis and tearing down of the xkcd strips. But this?? This is just DUMB. This is just a troll trying to troll trolls.

I mean seriously, how frequently does this "Rob" guy have to suck Carl's dick to get him to pretend that his stupid rants are actually a valued part of what makes this blog interesting. THEY ARE NOT. Stop them. For fuck's sake.

God, I mean seriously, this site is usually something GOOD, and then you guys go and fill it with this waste of effort and time that is this worthless drivel. Do you not know what you're even doing anymore?? Are you decaying just as fast as xkcd is? Wow.

I wonder if this was why Carl mentioned he wanted to do a week long hiatus, can't really blame him he could get lucky and a have a week of mediocre xkcds that are not worthy of a rant, or he could get absolute shit and he would have to break his hiatus simply to point out how god awful those pieces of shit are

Hokay, I'm not bothered by Inspector Gadget being made out as pervy so much as I'm bothered by this strip just being dumb.

What "gadget" is supposed to activate here? A built-in PC and monitor where he can google up and view whatever subject matter he requests? VR simulation software wired into his go-go gadget dick? Remote-controlled clockwork robot lesbians? What?

Fuck guys. I actually got a chuckle out of today's comic. I mean it was inspector gadget being pervy. It's not clever. But fuck it was kind of funny.

It's not clever and it's not funny. It's just "haha what if an innocent character from your childhood was really a HUGE PERV."

There's a couple possibilities. One is that this is really just what it seems: 80s Reference + Sex = ROFL ROFL ROFL. Slightly less retarded is the possibility that this is Opposite Humor, where you take something well-known and go "what if it was the opposite?" Scott Adams mentions this in a book at some point. A murderous doctor, an honest vendor, a generous lawyer, whatever. You invert an archetype and play it for laughs.

That's what I think this is, and actually it's what he did with Harriet the Spy and Wesley from The Princess Bride. The problem is he just regurgitates these inverted archetypes. He doesn't do anything funny with them, or show unusual reactions to them, or put them in interesting situations. He just goes "What if Inspector Gadget were like the opposite of how he actually is? He would be a big perv."

What if Randall were the opposite of how he actually is? He would be Ryan North.

Cam, you're totally right, Canada has made a lot of good movies, and animation is pretty strong there as well! My apologies!

Maletoth, I have to disagree with you on James Cameron, and, it seems, movies in general.

Cameron's movies are formulaic to the utmost, in everything from characters to plot to photography to dialogue. I'll give you one exception, which is Terminator 2. But Terminator 1, appealing though the title character is, is yet another "gimmick" action film from the 80s, where we go through the same motions, in the same order, of "peaceful life", "discovering threat", "action sequence", "explanation scene", "action sequence", etc, until the end comes at last. The only distinguishing feature of each of these films is a gimmick, like "robot from the future", "alien invasion", "giant bananas" etc.

Avatar isn't bad because it's an expression of white guilt or whatever, it's bad because it's a SHITTY expression of white guilt through nothing but cliches. Holy fuck, an apprenticeship montage, where we follow Jake learning the ways of the Navi? How many billion times have we seen that? Holy fuck, a dispute between scientist and army characters, where each side sees the other as stupid? This was old already in fucking DAWN OF THE DEAD. Holy fuck, a romance springing up between a foreigner and a native woman who was promised to someone else? Who has the nerve to put this on their film anymore, in 2010, with a straight face? This was already old in fucking POCAHONTAS.

Even for sci-fi nerds, what the fuck is up with every species of animal having six limbs except the Navi, who have four? WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY EVOLVE FROM?

All the dialogues are trite and all the characters are caricatures. The way the camera tells the story is also extremely unimaginative, but unfortunately this is the norm for Hollywood, which has the most dazzlingly homogeneous camerawork anywhere. Fuck me, that was a terrible movie. It was much, much worse than anything xkcd has ever put out.

Cam, you're totally right, Canada has made a lot of good movies, and animation is pretty strong there as well! My apologies!

Maletoth, I have to disagree with you on James Cameron, and, it seems, movies in general.

Cameron's movies are formulaic to the utmost, in everything from characters to plot to photography to dialogue. I'll give you one exception, which is Terminator 2. But Terminator 1, appealing though the title character is, is yet another "gimmick" action film from the 80s, where we go through the same motions, in the same order, of "peaceful life", "discovering threat", "action sequence", "explanation scene", "action sequence", etc, until the end comes at last. The only distinguishing feature of each of these films is a gimmick, like "robot from the future", "alien invasion", "giant bananas" etc.

Avatar isn't bad because it's an expression of white guilt or whatever, it's bad because it's a SHITTY expression of white guilt through nothing but cliches. Holy fuck, an apprenticeship montage, where we follow Jake learning the ways of the Navi? How many billion times have we seen that? Holy fuck, a dispute between scientist and army characters, where each side sees the other as stupid? This was old already in fucking DAWN OF THE DEAD. Holy fuck, a romance springing up between a foreigner and a native woman who was promised to someone else? Who has the nerve to put this on their film anymore, in 2010, with a straight face? This was already old in fucking POCAHONTAS.

Even for sci-fi nerds, what the fuck is up with every species of animal having six limbs except the Navi, who have four? WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY EVOLVE FROM?

All the dialogues are trite and all the characters are caricatures. The way the camera tells the story is unimaginative, but unfortunately this is the norm for Hollywood, which employs the most dazzlingly homogeneous camerawork anywhere. Fuck me, that was a terrible movie. It was much, much worse than anything xkcd has ever put out.

I'm honestly surprised people like the latest comic. It is just plain horrible IMO. Is there any joke other than "Hey guys, I too have read PowerPerversionPotential on TVTropes". Yes, the comic is just as funny as your average TVTropes entry. But, I guess for xkcd fans quirky reference + SEX is just enough.

Someone on the XKCD forum: "it's ALWAYS funny to reference any (children's) cartoon character in combination with sex."

I want to believe this is sarcasm, but the line just before it was: "I'm just gonna log my vote for the "Comrade Munroe is STILL funnier than all you haters, combined" category."

Wow, this person has just given us the secret to an effortless webcomic that would have 100% funny strips all the time! Just google image a different character each day and copy-paste on a word balloon saying "Hey, guess what? I LIKE SEX!"

Only thing left to do after that is just sit back and wait for the T-shirt money to roll in.

Randall makes this comic and the fans love it apparently. Or do they? Actually quite a bit of the comments in the thread are pretty negative aside from a couple of butthurt fanboys who can't handle anyone calling something Randall did anything less than genius.

Then that one guy who said it's always funny to put children's cartoon characters in sexual situations. I'd think he was being sarcastic if it wasn't for the first line of the post. I'm sure he'd find Concession hilarious, it has a comic of Dora the Explorer having sex.

And sorry it just doesn't work for me, the whole Inspector Gadget being pervy thing. It's way too far out of character for the guy, even for a joke...and maybe if it was a GOOD joke, or at least a decent joke, I could accept it, but to make someone completely out of character just for no real reason is ugh.

"Holy fuck, a dispute between scientist and army characters, where each side sees the other as stupid? This was old already in fucking DAWN OF THE DEAD."

I almost squeal like a girl when I see the title of that film. I love it so very much (and yeah, I despise Zack Snyder's remake. I am THAT predictable).

Just to complement your post, I think the biggest problem with Avatar is not simply in using those cliches, but in not adding any further thought. ANY FURTHER THOUGHT. Anything. There is nothing at all in there other than beaten cliches. Come on, the name of the metal they were after was "Unobtanium". Is THAT how lazy those writers were?

By the way, the point in the film when I completely lost all hopes of the thing getting any better was in the bow and arrow part of the "apprenticeship montage". I can't believe they went THAT low.

Randall is certainly on the right track with Friday's XKCD! A true treat for those of us who are just too clever to laugh at the childish pap served up as humor by the mainstream. Now all he needs is some kind of clever framing mechanism to introduce these brilliant insights!

So, I am late to the comments. Fucking Internet being a static and non-static channel of information. Ah well.

As a comment on the original article, there is a problem with your logic. You assume that you are a rational actor. You're not. People aren't. The problem here is Cognitive Dissonance. Once you commit yourself to a blog called "XKCD Sucks" you need XKCD to suck. You have the options of believing that XKCD Sucks, or you believe that your blog's purpose is wrong. Since you can't change the past (creating the blog), you change what you can change (the belief that this XKCD is good). So - yes, there's bias.

NOW! For the most part, I agree with this blog. Most of the faults found are faults. And I tend to check this blog as a secondary look at the comic, and a biased but interesting analysis. There's about equal badness here as there is at XKCD, but you at least are open about your biases. You state you don't like comics with graphs in them. Sure, fine. I know when I see a comic with a graph, most of the XKCD community will like it, because often it's a correlation of data they find amusing, and shuffling numbers can be interesting. Here, I know you'll be pissed off, that's also ok. You'll have problems with the existence of stick figures, which is something that early XKCD didn't have a problem with.

So - you likely suffer from dissonance, and act as a non-rational actor which is finding fault in things which he doesn't agree with, despite the fact that others like it.

I think this is good reading on understanding the making of comics:http://peanutsroasted.blogspot.com/

do they really teach psychologists to be able to diagnose people over the internet? like, can you just read a few posts by people and go "ah, yes, you obviously have great emotional investment in this topic and it's biasing you and producing a halo effect that renders your judgments invalid"? i always thought it was harder to render judgment. maybe not.

. You'll have problems with the existence of stick figures

Sorry, no. We have problems with the existence of shittily-drawn stick figures, with errors so basic that they could have been corrected in the zero seconds it took to draw the stick figure in the first place.

also why don't xkcd fans suffer from the exact same dissonance? once they've decided they like it, and that only smart people like xkcd, and that all smart people should like xkcd, then they have a psychological commitment to enjoying xkcd! that's why randall's pandering is so successful, because it contributes to the dissonance that xkcd is an exclusive Smart People's Club. they need to perceive xkcd is intelligent and funny, because that contributes to their self-identification as intelligent people with a sense of humor.

@Maletoth: It's not a bad comedic principle, inversion, but you're right it needs to have more done with it than just "here is an inversion".The joke doesn't come from the twist of "Inspector Gadget is actually a perv" but from developing it: "What would the consequences of such an inversion be?"Randy doesn't go that far.thereforeRandy fails at jokecraft.

- - - - -

xkcd is very glib, and the comics are all just raw ideas rather than honed jokes.There's no work in them, no rewriting layering development elaboration, no attention to the actual execution.

Just a one minute inspiration and a two minute sketch.

Important as inspiration is, comedy on a schedule needs work and effort. You can't make it on creativity alone.Not convinced? Well which of these is funny:1. Hey wouldn't it be great if there was a guy named 'Who' so people'd be all "Who's that guy?" "He sure is"2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmvkO5x6Ng&feature=fvw

Fernie, I also gave up on the movie at the very beginning of the apprenticeship montage. By that point I had already been annoyed by the retarded depiction of scientists and military (you cannot share a major plot device with Dawn of the Dead and expect to make a serious movie, I'm sorry, you can't) and by the rather high percentage of dialogue that was just there as a lazy way to explain the story.

I mean seriously, scientist gal and corporate guy (ugh, another caricature) have been working for a long time together, they both know what they are doing on Pandora, would they actually have that stupid conversation where he explains about Unobtainium? Only if they were both senile. It's like Michael Corleone turning to his brother in the middle of Godfather 2 and saying, "hey Fredo, some of the things we do are illegal ok?"

@11:22 - WHAT's the whole point, exactly? Please, don't just tantalize us like that, be more explicit, stay and teach us, share with us the secrets of Randall's elite humor that we simpletons no longer understand so we can come back into the light and be worthy nerds again.

(FWIW, this time my partner who teases me about being a "hater" these days said he didn't get it either)

Please explain, Anonymous. Seriously. Please explain that point that to you seems obvious.

To my mind the comic today is just stupid; it makes no sense. It is mightily deserving of ridicule. It has nary a morsel of humor (let alone wit or even coherence) in it or around it.

How is it that the "whole point" is that there's no gadget he can summon that would equate to "two lesbians doing it"? That's just inane. I'm one of those who normally consider this "sucks" site overkill, but I am slowly beginning to change my mind. The hit/miss ratio at the mother site is becoming alarmingly low.

How in all of existence does he summon two lesbians from his body (as all the other gadgets emanate)? If he can't, how is THAT funny? Please, please explain. Yes, I checked the xkcdexplained site, and the best they offer is that he "summons" them.

I'm not saying that it kept me from understanding the comic (more than for a split-second, anyway), and I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing that Randall makes all his people faceless stick figures, but maybe if he's going to commit himself to that he should not use jokes that rely on what the characters look like because it creates this weird uncanny valley-type deal.

Ok you guys have to admit Morning Squirtz is far superior to Xkcd right? I mean besides the fact that the art is a million times better we also have far funnier material. Ok he has more math then us but since when is math funny? Can I get some confirmation please?

In Everybody Loves Raymond (a shining example of dull, comedy-by-committee bland horse shit) there is a line where Raymond says "Mom! Mom! Mom!" three times as his mother appears out of coincidence. He then says "Xena Warrior Princess" three times, pretending that he wants her to appear.

This is essentially the same joke as the one in this xkcd comic, and is better executed (due to actually MAKING SENSE). A broad, family sitcom does it better as a throwaway joke than Randall does it in a comic *revolving around* the joke. A comic that is heralded as the comic of the intelligentsia, due to facile references to things the author read on Wikipedia.

Hey you guys were talking about me I just joined the conversation. Why are you anonymous? Are you the Xkcd guy? Whats not funny about ninjas and pirates? Look I wrote a new squirtz in honor of your suggestion. Admit it that shit right there is funny.

Also I hate to admit it but I laughed at Anon 8:28's edit. That really is how far Randall has fallen. This is the same level as thay one joke where Lion-O uses the Sword of Omens to watch Cheetara go to the bathroom.

I have nothing to say about Morning Squirtz except well, it isn't the worst comic I've ever seen, but you can't say it isn't trying to be.

I keep reading comments how Randall's comics actually have equations, reversing archetypes, art is subjective and other shit like that. Maybe Randall's just writing a webcomic, ya know? Not a fuckin research paper? xkcd has lots of cheap laughs, and it's something we don't have to pay for. What the hell guys? Maybe rob should do a rant on how "you're just overanalyzing it"

Also don't say i'm stupid because I don't understand what you'all are saying, because i do understand. BITCHEZ

Here's my thinking process when reading this comic:-Who the hell is that? Oh..-Lol

then I go to science 1AIf you don't look for a flaw, then you won't find one. As they say, ignorance is bliss, peoples. (Also don't go like "in life, if you be ignorant, then you will PHALE." but this is not life. It's a webcomic.)

see the problem with defending XKCD as being mindless entertainment that you shouldn't think about is that it portrays itself as a comic for smart people who laugh about as much at all the lowly plebs who couldn't possibly understand XKCD as the comic itself

"YOU, unspecified generic person, meaning anyone who would criticize me on grounds that I consider stupid, would do that BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID".

If I said "Rob, I see you're criticizing me on stupid grounds. Therefore, Rob, YOU'RE STUPID" it would be ad hominem.

Sure, it's nice and fun that you're playing around with what makes an ad hominem by throwing it at a target that's not an exact identified person. It's all so deconstructive an post-modern and shit.

Even if you put forward some (stupid?) argument for how that makes it actually not ad hominem, it doesn't change the fact that it's equally, um, rude and unconvincing and not-making-you-right as an ad hominem would be. On reflection though, I don't expect that you give a fuck about any of that; I'm sure it's been _fun_ for you and that's more important. Fine. You just don't get to act as the class clown and the debating club president in the same breath.

You DON'T like it because you're some dumb scrub who's mad because he doesn't "get" it and goes out LOOKING for reasons that it sucks. You end with your smug little "LOL BUT WE FIND THEM" completely ignoring psych 101 says you're going to see what you want to see.

Here is why you should stop existing. I have read a few of your reviews, and often you make an assumption about what the author intends, and then find fault in the failure of the author to achieve your assumed goal.

If you were remotely accurate in your assumptions, it would be fine, but I don't think you are.

I will give an example. One "review" of one of the DRM-related comics states something to the effect of "Then Randall puts the hat guy in there just thinking it will make it all awesome but it totally doesn't."

A non-biased reviewer might instead assume xkcd has like 10 characters, he had to use one of them, he chose this one, that choice is irrelevant both to the joke and the comic as a whole, and so I will ignore it because it is meaningless. Instead you act like a nit-picky little bitch. Thus the problem of bias.

see, you're clearly just biased against this blog. someone who isn't biased against the blog doesn't mind when we complain about how Randall cynically exploits his audience all the time--instead they would just take it in stride that our interpretation of the work is both valid and widespread. but your bias keeps you from seeing that and just makes you into a nitpicky little bitch.

Except that xkcd doesn't have 10 characters, it has 2. Mr. Hat, and Mr. Beret. In Mr. Hat's case, he has the general outline of a character with consistent (sometimes) ideas and opinions, etc. This comic is not related to those things (he is not, for example, being a "classhole"). So what is his purpose there? What difference does it make that he is there, rather than a generic stick figure? Nothing, just there to make fans like the comic because they know the character.

Biased is defined by Princeton as "favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of the trial". Prejudiced is defined as, "disadvantage by prejudice". One can see that bias is positive and prejudice is negative. You saying "You're just biased against XKCD..." is like saying, "You're just for against XKCD..." At best this is redundant; at worst it is meaningless. The better title would be, "You're just prejudiced against XKCD..."

And no, "to be biased for a thing is to be [prejudiced] against the opposite of that thing." It is simple grammar.

since you're being a pedantic prescriptivist, let me paste you the very first dictionary definition for 'biased' from dictionary.com:

adjective. having or showing bias or prejudice.

once can be biased for or against something--a bias against something is often called prejudice, but that word is usually only used in the context of racism, classism, or sexism, so 'biased' is the superior word in this context. it's also the word which everyone uses when accusing this blog of bias.

oh man, it keeps getting better. here's the noun definition for "bias" from the second entry:

2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

and the synonyms section in that same entry:

2. predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity; bent, leaning. Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone. A bias may be favorable or unfavorable: bias in favor of or against an idea. Prejudice implies a preformed judgment even more unreasoning than bias, and usually implies an unfavorable opinion: prejudice against a race.

I will now write the rest of this post without regard to correct definitions. Alligator incoherently triple. Monument truthful a feel without.

Seriously, though, we have to ask ourselves, ought we to trust Princeton or Dictionary.com?

Certainly, both are reputable sources, but which one is more important? One of the most distinguished universities in America, or a website that gives no credentials whatsoever?

Even ignoring that, we have to ask ourselves, what is language? It is defined as “a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols.” Communicating is defined as, “communication: the activity of communicating; the activity of conveying information.”

Therefore, we can say that better languages are ones that communicate ideas more effectively. For example, I could have a language that interjects random filler words for no reason, like “Apples meloga quanta richad are twvli trita elom fruits. Modern English would surely be better, since it could convey the same message with more brevity and therefore prevent conversations from taking four times longer than normal. At the same time, it is also important for words to be easily understandable. For example, the problem with Morse code, when not transmitted electronically but instead through sound waves, is that misinterpretation is rampant, to the point where we often have to retry our transmissions many times to make sure that the others get the message.

Since language requires brevity and easy comprehension, then we can say that a good language would keep both of these, the number of words and the number of meanings, to a minimum. One major problem is that of homophones, like “The bare bear bears bat bats in May’s maize maze” to mean, “the hairless grizzly holds baseball bats in the shape of flying mammals within the corn maze that May grew.” Therefore, we can see that homophones can be an impediment to understanding. Another problem is when words have multiple different definitions. If I say, “Where is my sole?” when I really need to get my shoes repaired, passerby might understand it as wanting religious advice or wanting to return to my hometown in South Korea.

As we can see, it is best to try to attribute just one meaning to a word. That is the major problem in this case. You say that bias means for or against, while prejudice means against only. To simplify, would it not make more sense to use prejudice only to mean bad and bias only to mean good, or else we would have a completely useless word.

Also, on your second post, your definitions contradict each other. The first one explicitly states that prejudice is a synonym for bias, but the second one says that they are not the same: prejudice is stronger.

Also, on what point does bias become prejudice? There is no definable point at which we can say that bias becomes prejudice. To say so would mean that comments such as “I’m biased against chickens but now that I ate a raw one I’m prejudiced against them” would actually make sense.

dictionary.com cites other dictionaries, in this case, both American Heritage and Merriam Webster. SO NICE TRY.

the simplest thing would be to do what I do: Use bias for both, and say that one is "biased towards" or "biased in favor of" thing X or "biased against" thing Y. And not need separate words for the same idea. Rob, I can let you elaborate more.

"As we can see, it is best to try to attribute just one meaning to a word."

And here is where you fail.

Well, no. You failed when you started trying to argue that one dictionary is superior to another and that you should ignore one of them entirely when trying to define a word. You failed when you started being a prescriptivist and assuming that there is a "right" way to use language, as if a single word has only a single meaning and that any other meaning is incorrect even when the meaning is entirely clear and it is.

But it's here that you achieved the very pinnacle of your idiocy.

Here you are insisting that words should have only one meaning. This is not, of course, what you really mean, of course. We aren't using bias to have multiple meanings. We are using bias to mean "a skew." No more. No less. You are arguing for a decrease in simplicity: that the word should imply a skew in a particular direction. There is a reason that "towards" and "against" exist as words. They exist to provide contexts to words.

You can root for a sports team, for instance. You can also root against them. You can preach that something is good; you can preach that something is evil. You can talk about how great something is. You can talk about how horrible it is. You can campaign for something. You can campaign against something. You can be biased towards something. You can be biased against something.

A bias is a skew implying that objectivity is lacking. It's used in statistics to mean that the results have been distorted, or skewed--not that the skew happens in one way or another.

But really your problem indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of language. Words are versatile. Words can be used in many different ways in hundreds of different contexts and with thousands of different connotations. There is no one correct way to use a word. You, on the other hand, imply that we should rely only on Princeton's dictionaries--as if a dictionary is the only correct way to use a language, which is a living thing, constantly changing and evolving to meet the needs of its society and of the writers that are using it. Writers have the power to create new words--just ask one Mr. Shakespeare--and using context, expect their readers and listeners to understand. Language is alive. Dictionaries are dead. Dictionaries do not limit; dictionaries illustrate.

It's pretty comical that you think that "definitions which mean slightly different things are contradictory," or that a definition which does not have a quantifiable difference between another word cannot be used. Languages can't be quantified, especially not connotations (the word "imply," by the way, refers to connotations, not denotations; that's the word my second "definition," which I clearly denoted as "the synonyms section" of the entry in question, uses; synonyms sections are useful for connotations, not denotations). You can't quantify the difference between "good" and "great," between "many" and "most," etc. It's something that people who actually understand how language works can intuitively grasp, but people who look for a single, quantifiable definition can't find.

Orwell's Newspeak was an attempt to remove any ambiguity from language--to remove the life and the connotation from language so that every word had only one meaning and no ambiguity, no possibility for wiggle room or confusion, no ability to express new concepts. The result was a cold and lifeless and meaningless language, bereft of life and love and innovation.

Words can mean different things. Words can mean the same things. Words can also do both at the same time. The word 'bias,' being an incredibly neutral word, is an example of words doing both at the same time. It means the same thing as prejudice. It also means a very different thing: while bias implies a skew, prejudice implies that the game has been rigged from the start. It does this simultaneously with meaning the exact same thing.

The beautiful part is that people who actually know how to use the language--as opposed to people such as yourself who merely happen to speak it--can differentiate purely based on context, which is built entirely on context and connotation, which is the use of different words with different meanings in different contexts to mean a very specific thing. And language is so versatile that using the word "bear" in one sentence refers to a large angry mammal but in yet another sentence refers to enduring, while in still a third sentence it means to give birth--and this is immediately intuitive to all readers.

People with tiny little worlds insist that words have only one correct meaning. (Ironically, their correct meaning is never actually the correct one, but they will still defend it to the death, insisting that to not use words the way they are is the equivalent of saying things like "Monument truthful a feel without."

Your point has the twin virtues of being utterly pedantic as well as entirely misguided. You are no longer even arguing from English as it is used so much as English as you happen to think it ought to be. You are a prescriptivist whose prescriptions come from someone you have already acknowledged to be a quack (a word with several different meanings; I am certain you know which one I am using). Despite every scientist saying that your prescriptions do not help, that it is nothing more than a placebo effect, and that there are superior alternatives that actually work out there, you continue to prescribe the same ones to your customers, because you happen to like their name.

And you have the gall (a word with no fewer than ten different definitions, and yet whose meaning you have already grasped) to insist that your prescription is the only correct one--that anyone who uses anything else is wrong, offering no better credentials than your assertion that it's better this way.

My main problem, and only one, in fact, is how much of an asshole you act like. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a character judgment here, I'm just saying your tone is EXTREMELY condescending and as high and mighty as you make Randall out to be. To examine flaws, you should also examine strong points, and not just either say "a comic as shitty as this doesn't have any" or "Well this was okay, but it doesn't matter because everything else is SHIT". You ARE biased. I'm not saying you don't find legitimate flaws in the comic, but you're not JUST being a critic. You've decided you hate the comic, and by searching for and finding flaws, you're stroking your own ego, in a way saying "ha, look, I'm so right about this shit". With all the fuss you put up about objectivity and subjectivity, you don't give very objective reviews. You ignore the good and focus on the bad, and often blow it out of proportion. You feel that everything is justified because "xkcd is a shitty webcomic", and such a piece of crap doesn't deserve a fair review.

At least that's how it comes off. I'm not saying your arguments aren't intelligent, and that you don't make good points once in a while, but your tone seems to be trying to settle an agenda with Randall rather than criticizing the comic. It's not so much "This is what sucked about X comic" as it is "This comic is really shitty, and I'm going to rail on it for these X things". It really seems like you're putting more effort into emphasizing how much balls the comic sucks than you do into actually explaining why you disliked it. You take the angle that the comic is OBJECTIVELY bad, and that's not criticism, that's Slander.

My reviews are more objective than you give me credit for. I point out good things often, which makes me think you are new here. That said, most comics ARE objectively bad, and my purpose is to explain why. slander would be if i was lying, like if I said "randall only made this comic to distract people from all the murders he's been doing." I think - unless that's libel? It's something like that.

Rob, would you say it is better to convey an idea with ease and simplicity or to use more complicated language to maintain an image of intelligence but sacrificing simplicity?

Sure, language is used as a vehicle for communication. However, just because someone communicates an idea doesn't mean they're using language well. Demonstration:"Every day when I go to work, I have to slide my card in the swipey-thing, and do it again when I leave."

Sure, everyone knows what you mean. You just sound stupid saying it. Instead, it can be said intelligently, without giving much more understanding to the listener, like"At work, we have an electronic card reader that we swipe our IDs through before and after every shift."

It conveys little if any extra meaning to the listener, he'll walk away with the same information in either case. So which one should you use? The one that conveys an obvious meaning with as little thought as possible, or the one that makes you seem well-versed and intelligent, but is no doubt more verbose then needed?

Okay, so I am not entirely sure why you are commenting here for this, and I'm tired so I'm not going to read through the context, so forgive me if I miss something obvious.

This is my rule: Good writing is conveying an idea as simply as possible without destroying meaning, and using only the best words to describe something. This means not using flowery language, but it doesn't mean avoiding using a word if it is the best word for the job.

In your example, I don't really like either sentence as it stands--I'd prefer something like "I have to swipe in and out of work every day." Unless the concept of the card-reader is important, you can pretty much gloss over it.

If the concept is important, remember that "simple" doesn't mean "stupid." It's closer to "pithy." In this case, "electronic card reader" is better than "swipey-thing," and you're actually explaining the function of the swiping--it reads your ID card. Saying you're sliding a card in a swipey-thing is only a good sentence if you are trying to convey that you don't have any idea what you're doing, that it's just some magical ritual.

Good writing is about precision. I prefer to err on the side of being too pithy--more people being able to understand something isn't a bad thing, and pithiness is much more elegant than grandiloquence--even if sometimes it might fail to convey all of the information I want it to get across.

you are my favorite type of troll. "lol u r ugly." it is almost like people think that I am concerned what random trolls think of my appearance! I have a hard time fathoming how stupid someone would have to be to think that saying "you are ugly" on the internet is going to somehow efficacious--unless you wanted someone to call you stupid for the comment, in which case, mission accomplished--you're an idiot.

god rob, do you actually think he was serious? I mean, yes, you are ugly, but man, he CLEARLY was just trying to fit in. God, you are not only ugly but really stupid as well. but we all knew all that already

carl, lots of trolls are serious about it. my favorite are the ones that say I should get some sleep or something because I look like I don't get much!

also, people trying to fit in don't post on old comment threads. you can pretty safely bet that anything posted on old comment threads is intended for the blog author only, not the commenting community.

Okay, seriously, think about it. I'm not saying that magicians are doing "real" magic, but to pass it off as being up the sleeve is ridiculous. You hide a fucking rabbit up your sleeve and then I will read the rest of your website. Actually, I'll probably keep reading the website anyways, but come on!

At the end point. My only comlain about this site is not the hate because I've heard worst and less based (points to you), my problem comes from the fact that your rants are with a lot of "shit" words... which frankly, takes a lot of your credibility.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.